[These articles were written in 1946 for and appeared originally
in THE VIGIL, a publication of The Motion Picture Alliance
for the Preservation of American Ideals, Beverly Hills, California. The
subject of these articles was limited to the sphere of politics, for the
purpose of defining and clarifying the basic principles involved in political
issues. The series is incomplete; the twelve questions reprinted here were
only the first third of a longer project; the rest has remained unwritten.]

1. What Is the Basic Issue
in the World Today?

The basic issue in the world today is between
two principles: Individualism and Collectivism. Individualism holds
that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by
any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore,
each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake
of the group. Collectivism holds that man has no rights;
that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the
group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the
sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each
man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the
group. These two principles are the roots of two opposite
social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two
systems.

2. What Is a Social System?

A social system is a code
of laws which men observe in order to live together. Such a code
must have a basic principle, a starting point, or it cannot be devised.
The starting point is the question: Isthe power of society limited or
unlimited?Individualism answers: The power of society
is limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make
only such laws as do not violate these rights. Collectivism answers: The power of society
is unlimited. Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon
anyone in any manner it wishes. Example: Under a system of Individualism,
a million men cannot pass a law to kill one man for their own benefit.
If they go ahead and kill him, they are breaking the law -- which protects
his right to life -- and they are punished. Under a system of Collectivism, a million
men (or anyone claiming to represent them) can pass a law to kill one man
(or any minority), whenever they think they would benefit by his death.
His right to live is not recognized. Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the
man and it is legal for him to protect himself. The law is on the side
of a right. Under Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to
kill a man and it is illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the
side of a number. In the first case, the law represents
a moral principle. In the second case, the law represents the idea
that there are no moral principles, and men can do anything they please,
provided there's enough of them. Under a system of Individualism, men are equal
before the law at all times. Each has the same rights, whether he is alone
or has a million others with him. Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang
up on one another -- and whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds
all
rights, while the loser (the individual or the minority) has
none.
Any man can be an absolute master or a helpless slave -- according
to the size of his gang. An example of the first system: The United
States of America. (See: The Declaration of Independence.) An example of the second system: Soviet Russia
and
Nazi
Germany. Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants
or "kulaks" were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that
this was for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended
was anti-kulak. Under the Nazi system, millions of Jews were exterminated
by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit of
the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-Semitic. The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable
and consistent result of the principle of Collectivism. When applied in
practice, a principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights,
can result in nothing except brutality. Keep this in mind when you try to decide what
is the proper social system. You have to start by answering the first question.
Either
the power of society is limited, or it is not. It can't be both.

3. What Is the Basic Principle
of America?

The basic principle of the United States of America
is Individualism. America is built on the principle that Man possesses
Inalienable Rights;

that these rights belong to each man as an individual -- not
to "men" as a group or collective;

that these rights are the unconditional, private, personal, individual
possession of each man -- not the public, social, collective possession
of a group;

that these rights are granted to man by the fact of his birth as a man
-- not by an act of society;

that man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for
the
Collective, but against the Collective -- as a barrier which the
Collective cannot cross;

that these rights are man's protection against all other men;

that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society of freedom,
justice, human dignity, and decency.

The Constitution of the United States of America
is
not a document that limits the rights of man -- but a document
that limits the power of society over man.

4. What Is a Right?

A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that
which can be exercised without anyone's permission.If you exist only because society permits you to exist -- you have
no
right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission
of society -- you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you
or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a worker
is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does
not hold it by permission -- but by contract,
that is, by a voluntary
mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A slave cannot.

5. What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man?

The inalienable Rights of Men are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of Happiness.The Right of Life means that Man cannot
be deprived of his life for the benefit of another man nor of any number
of other men.The Right of Liberty means Man's right
to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative, and individual
property. Without the right to private property no independent action is
possible.The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means
man's right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private,
personal, individual happiness, and to work for its achievement so long
as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced
to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of
other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the
purpose of a man's existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.

6. How Do We Recognize One Another's Rights?

Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this
means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all
men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man
cannot and must not violate the rights of another. For instance: a man has the right to live, but
he has no right to take the life of another. He has the right to be free,
but no right to enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness,
but no right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder
or robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts
defines the same right of another man. and serves as a guide to tell him
what he may or may not do. Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think
that an individualist is a man who says: "I'll do as I please at everybody
else's expense." An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable
individual rights of man -- his own and those of others. An individualist is a man who says: "I'll not
run anyone's life -- nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor be ruled.
I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice myself to anyone
-- nor sacrifice anyone to myself." A collectivist is a man who says: "Let's get
together, boys -- and then anything goes!"

7. How Do We Determine That a Right Has Been Violated?

A right cannot be violated except by physical
force. One man cannot deprive another of his life nor enslave him, nor
forbid him to pursue happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever
a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary
consent -- his right has been violated. Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between
the rights of one man and those of another. It is an objective division
-- not subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor
to the arbitrary decree of society.
NO MAN HAS THE
RIGHT TO INITIATE THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER MAN. The practical rule of conduct in a free society,
a society of Individualism, is simple and clear-cut: you cannot expect
or demand any action from another man, except through his free, voluntary
consent. Do not be misled on this point by an old collectivist
trick which goes like this: There is no absolute freedom anyway, since
you are not free to murder; society limits your freedom when it does not
permit you to kill; therefore, society holds the right to limit your freedom
in any manner it sees fit; therefore, drop the delusion of freedom -- freedom
is whatever society decides it is. It is not society, nor any social right,
that forbids you to kill -- but the inalienable individual right
of another man to live. This is not a "compromise" between two rights -
but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division
is not derived from an edict of society -- but from your own inalienable
individual right. The definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by
society -- but is implicit in the definition of your own right. Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom
is
absolute.

8. What Is the Proper Function of Government?

The proper function of government is to protect
the individual rights of man; this means to protect man against brute force. In a proper social system, men do not use force
against one another; force may be used only in self-defense, that is, in
defense of a right violated by force. Men delegate to the government the
power to use force in retaliation -- and
only in retaliation. The proper kind of government does not initiate
the use of force. It uses force only to answer those who have initiated
its use. For example when the government arrests a criminal, it is not
the government that violates a right; it is the criminal who has violated
a right and by doing so has placed himself outside the principle of rights,
where men can have no recourse against him except through force. Now it is important to remember that all actions
defined as criminal in a free society are actions involving force and only
such actions are answered by force. Do not be misled by sloppy expressions such as
"A murderer commits a crime against society." It is not society that a
murderer murders, but an individual man. It is not a social right that
he breaks, but an individual right. He is not punished for hurting a collective.
He has not hurt a whole collective -- he has hurt one man. If a criminal
robs ten men -- it is still not "society" that he has robbed, but ten individuals.
There are no crimes against "society" -- all crimes are committed against
specific men, against individuals. And it is precisely the duty of a proper
social system and of a proper government to protect an individual against
criminal attack -- against force. When, however, a government becomes an initiator
of force, the injustice and moral corruption involved are truly unspeakable. For example: When a Collectivist government orders
a man to work and attaches him to a job, under penalty of death or imprisonment,
it is the government that initiates the use of force. The man has done
no violence to anyone -- but the government uses violence against him.
There is no possible justification for such a procedure in theory. And
there is no possible result in practice -- except the blood and the terror
which you can observe in any Collectivist country. The moral perversion involved is this: If men
had no government and no social system of any kind, they might have to
exist through sheer force and fight one another in any disagreement; in
such a state, one man would have a fair chance against one other man: but
he would have no chance against ten others. It is not against
an individual
that
a man needs protection -- but against a group.
Still, in such a
state of anarchy, while any majority gang would have its way, a minority
could fight them by any means available. And the gang could not make its
rule last. Collectivism goes a step below savage anarchy:
it takes away from man even the chance to fight back. It makes violence
legal -- and resistance to it illegal. It gives the sanction of law to
the organized brute force of a majority (or of anyone who claims to represent
it)-and turns the minority into a helpless, disarmed object of extermination.
If you can think of a more vicious perversion of justice -- name it. In actual practice, when a Collectivist society
violates the rights of a minority (or of one single man), the result is
that the majority loses its rights as well, and finds itself delivered
into the total power of a small group that rules through sheer brute force. If you want to understand and keep clearly in
mind the difference between the use of force as retaliation (as it is used
by the government of an Individualist society) and the use of force as
primary policy (as it is used by the government of a Collectivist society),
here is the simplest example of it: it is the same difference as that between
a murderer and a man who kills in self-defense. The proper kind of government
acts on the principle of man's self-defense. A Collectivist government
acts like a murderer.

9. Can There Be A "Mixed" Social System?

There can be no social system which is a mixture
of Individualism and Collectivism. Either individual rights are recognized
in a society, or they are not recognized. They cannot be half-recognized. What frequently happens, however, is that a society
based on Individualism does not have the courage, integrity and intelligence
to observe its own principle consistently in every practical application.
Through ignorance, cowardice, or mental sloppiness, such a society passes
laws and accepts regulations which contradict its basic principle and violate
the rights of man. To the extent of such violations, society perpetrates
injustices, evils, and abuses. If the breaches are not corrected, society
collapses into the chaos of Collectivism. When you see a society that recognizes man's
rights in some of its laws but not in others, do not hail it as a "mixed
" system and do not conclude that a compromise between basic principles,
opposed in theory, can be made to work in practice. Such a society is not
working; it is merely disintegrating. Disintegration takes time. Nothing
falls to pieces immediately -- neither a human body nor a human society.

10. Can A Society Exist Without a Moral Principle?

A great many people today hold the childish notion
that society can do anything it pleases; that principles are unnecessary,
rights are only an illusion. and expediency is the practical guide
to action. It is true that society con abandon moral
principles and turn itself into a herd running amuck to destruction. Just
as it is true that a man can cut his own throat anytime he chooses.
But a man cannot do this if he wishes to survive. And society cannot
abandon
moral principles if it expects to exist. Society is a large number of men who live together
in the same country, and who deal with one another. Unless there is a defined,
objective moral code, which men understand and observe, they have no way
of dealing with one another -- since none can know what to expect from
his neighbor. The man who recognizes no morality is a criminal; you can
do nothing when dealing with a criminal, except try to crack his skull
before he cracks yours. You have no other language, no terms of behavior
mutually accepted. To speak of a society without moral principles is to
advocate that men live together like criminals. We are still observing, by tradition, so many
moral precepts that we take them for granted, and do not realize how many
actions of our daily lives are made possible only by moral principles.
Why is it safe for you to go into a crowded department store, make a purchase
and come out again? The crowd around you needs goods, too; the crowd could
easily overpower the few salesgirls, ransack the store, and grab your packages
and pocketbook as well. Why don't they do it? There is nothing to stop
them and nothing to protect you -- except the moral principle of your
individual right of life and property. Do not make the mistake of thinking that crowds
are restrained merely by fear of policemen There could not be enough policemen
in the world if men believed that it is proper and practical to loot. And
if men believed this, why shouldn't the policemen believe it, too? Who,
then, would be the policemen? Besides, in a Collectivist society the policemen's
duty is not to protect your rights, but to violate them. It would certainly be expedient for the crowd
to loot the department store -- if we accept the expediency of the moment
as a sound and proper rule of action. But how many department stores, how
many factories, farms or homes would we have, and for how long, under this
rule of expediency? If we discard morality and substitute for it
the collectivist doctrine of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the
idea that a majority may do anything it pleases, and that anything done
by a majority is right because it's done by a majority (this being
the only standard of right and wrong), how are men to apply this in practice
to their actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular
man, all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy
him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become enemies;
each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and murder first,
before he is robbed and murdered. If you think that this is just abstract theory,
take a look at Europe for a practical demonstration. In Soviet Russia and
Nazi Germany, private citizens did the foulest work of the G.P.U. and the
Gestapo, spying on one another, delivering their own relatives and friends
to the secret police and the torture chambers. This
was the result
in practice of Collectivism in theory. This was the concrete application
of that empty, vicious Collectivist slogan which seems so high-sounding
to the unthinking: "The public good comes above any individual rights." Without individual rights, no public good
is possible. Collectivism, which places the group above the
individual and tells men to sacrifice their rights for the sake of their
brothers, results in a state where men have no choice but to dread, hate
and destroy their brothers. Peace, security, prosperity, co-operation and
good will among men, all those things considered socially desirable, are
possible only under a system of Individualism, where each man is safe in
the exercise of his individual rights and in the knowledge that society
is there to protect his rights, not to destroy them. Then
each man knows what he may or may not do to his neighbors, and what his
neighbors (one or a million of them) may or may not do to him. Then he
is free to deal with them as a friend and an equal. Without a moral code no proper human society
is possible. Without the recognition of individual rights
no moral code is possible.

11. Is "The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number"
A Moral Principle?

'The greatest good for the greatest number" is
one of the most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity. This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning.
There is no way to interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in
which it can be used to justify the most vicious actions. What is the definition of "the good" in this
slogan? None, except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in
any particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why,
the greatest number. If you consider this moral, you would have to
approve of the following examples, which are exact applications of this
slogan in practice: fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine;
nine hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynch mob murdering a man
whom they consider dangerous to the community. There were seventy million Germans in Germany
and six hundred thousand Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported
the Nazi government which told them that their greatest good would be served
by exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their property.
This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan accepted in
theory. But, you might say, the majority in all these
examples did not achieve any real good for itself either? No. It
didn't. Because "the good" is not determined by counting numbers and is
not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. The unthinking believe that this slogan implies
something vaguely noble and virtuous, that it tells men to sacrifice themselves
for the greatest number of others. If so, should the greatest number
of men wish to be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the smallest number
who would be vicious and accept it? No? Well, then should the
smallest number be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the greatest number
who would be vicious? The unthinking assume that every man who mouths
this slogan places himself unselfishly with the smaller number to be sacrificed
to the greatest number of others. Why should he? There is nothing in the
slogan to make him do this. He is much more likely to try to get in with
the greatest number, and start sacrificing others. What the slogan actually
tells him is that he has no choice, except to rob or be robbed, to crush
or get crushed. The depravity of this slogan lies in the implication
that "the good" of a majority must be achieved through the suffering of
a minority; that the benefit of one man depends upon the sacrifice of another. If we accept the Collectivist doctrine that man
exists only for the sake of others, then it is true that every pleasure
he enjoys (or every bite of food) is evil and immoral if two other men
want it. But, on this basis, men cannot eat, breathe, or love. All of that
is selfish. (And what if two other men want your wife?) Men cannot live
together at all, and can do nothing except end up by exterminating one
another. Only on the basis of individual rights can any
good -- private or public -- be defined and achieved. Only when each man
is free to exist for his own sake -- neither sacrificing others to himself
nor being sacrificed to others -- only then is every man free to work for
the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and by his
own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the only kind
of general, social good possible. Do not think that the opposite of "the greatest
good for the greatest number" is "the greatest good for the smallest number."
The opposite is: the greatest good he can achieve by his own free effort,
to every man living. If you are an Individualist and wish to preserve
the American way of life, the greatest contribution you can make is to
discard, once and for all, from your thinking, from your speeches, and
from your sympathy, the empty slogan of "the greatest good for the greatest
number." Reject any argument, oppose any proposal that has nothing but
this slogan to justify it. It is a booby-trap. It is a precept of pure
Collectivism. You cannot accept it and call yourself an Individualist.
Make your choice. It is one or the other.

12. Does The Motive Change The Nature Of A Dictatorship?

The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from
a Collectivist, is that he means what he says and knows what he means. When we say that we hold individual rights to
be
inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means
that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate
-- not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever. You cannot say that "man has inalienable rights
except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot
say that "man has inalienable rights except in an emergency," or "man's
rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose." Either man's rights are inalienable, or they
are not. You cannot say a thing such as "semi-inalienable" and consider
yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations
and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man's
rights who may violate them at his discretion. Who? Why, society -- that
is, the Collective. For what reason? For the good of the Collective. Who
decides when rights should be violated? The Collective. If this is what
you believe, move over to the side where you belong and admit that you
are a Collectivist. Then take all the consequences which Collectivism implies.
There is no middle ground here. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
You are not fooling anyone but yourself. Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases,
such as "the middle of the road." Individualism and Collectivism are not
two sides of the same road, with a safe rut for you in the middle. They
are two roads going into opposite directions. One leads to freedom, justice
and prosperity; the other to slavery, horror and destruction. The choice
is yours to make. The growing spread of Collectivism throughout
the world is not due to any cleverness of the Collectivists, but to the
fact that most people who oppose them actually believe in Collectivism
themselves. Once a principle is accepted, it is not the man who is half-hearted
about it, but the man who is whole-hearted that's going to win; not the
man who is least consistent in applying it, but the man who is most consistent.
If you enter a race, saying: "I only intend to run the first ten yards,"
the man who says: "I'll run to the finish line," is going to beat you.
When you say: "I only want to violate human rights just a tiny little bit,"
the Communist or Fascist who says "I'm going to destroy all human rights"
will beat you and win. You've opened the way for him. By permitting themselves this initial dishonesty
and evasion, men have now fallen into a Collectivist trap, on the question
of whether a dictatorship is proper or not. Most people give lip-service
to denunciations of dictatorship. But very few take a clear-cut stand and
recognize dictatorship for what it is: an absolute evil in any form, by
anyone, for anyone, anywhere, at any time and for any purpose whatsoever. A great many people now enter into an obscene
kind of bargaining about differences between "a good dictatorship" and
a "bad dictatorship," about motives, causes, or reasons that make dictatorship
proper. For the question: "Do you want dictatorship?," the Collectivists
have substituted the question: "What kind of dictatorship do you want?"
They can afford to let you argue from then on; they have won their point. A great many people believe that a dictatorship
is terrible if it's "for a bad motive," but quite all right and even desirable
if it's "for a good motive." Those leaning toward Communism (they usually
consider themselves "humanitarians") claim that concentration camps and
torture chambers are evil when used "selfishly," "for the sake of one race,"
as Hitler did, but quite noble when used "unselfishly," "for the sake of
the masses," as Stalin does. Those leaning toward Fascism (they usually
consider themselves hard-boiled "realists") claim that whips and slave-drivers
are impractical when used "inefficiently," as in Russia, but quite practical
when used "efficiently," as in Germany. (And just as an example of where the wrong principle
will lead you in practice, observe that the "humanitarians," who are so
concerned with relieving the suffering of the masses, endorse, in Russia,
a state of misery for a whole population such as no masses have ever had
to endure anywhere in history. And the hard-boiled "realists." who are
so boastfully eager to be practical, endorse, in Germany, the spectacle
of a devastated country in total ruin, the end result of an "efficient"
dictatorship.) When you argue about what is a "good" or a "bad"
dictatorship, you have accepted and endorsed the principle of dictatorship.
You have accepted a premise of total evil -- of your right to enslave
others for the sake of what you think is good. From then on, it's
only a question of who will run the Gestapo. You will never be able to
reach an agreement with your fellow Collectivists on what is a "good" cause
for brutality and what is a "bad" one. Your particular pet definition may
not be theirs. You might claim that it is good to slaughter men only for
the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim that it is good to slaughter
men only for the sake of the rich; you might claim that it is immoral to
slaughter anyone except members of a certain class; somebody else might
claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a certain
race. All you will agree on is the slaughter. And that is all you will
achieve. Once you advocate the principle of dictatorship,
you invite all men to do the same. If they do not want your particular
kind or do not like your particular "good motive," they have no choice
but to rush to beat you to it and establish their own kind for their own
"good motive," to enslave you before you enslave them. A "good dictatorship"
is a contradiction in terms. The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper
to enslave men? The issue is: is it proper to enslave men or not? There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying
that a dictatorship can be justified by "a good motive" or "an unselfish
motive." All the brutal and criminal tendencies which mankind -- through
centuries of slow climbing out of savagery -- has learned to recognize
as evil and impractical, have now taken refuge under a "social" cover.
Many men now believe that it is evil to rob, murder, and torture for one's
own sake, but virtuous to do so for the sake of others. You may not indulge
in brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right ahead if it's for
the gain of others. Perhaps the most revolting statement one can ever hear
is: "Sure, Stalin has butchered millions, but it's justifiable, since it's
for the benefit of the masses." Collectivism is the last stand of savagery
in men's minds. Do not ever consider Collectivists as "sincere
but deluded idealists." The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of
others is not an ideal; brutality is not "idealistic," no matter what its
purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good
motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives.